Multi-Stakeholder Qualitative Interviews to Inform Measurement of Patient Reported Outcomes After CAR-T.

Toxicities after chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapy are well known, yet the patient experience during and after CAR-T therapy has not been well described outside of the trial setting. We explored the patient experience after CAR-T therapy to inform the patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measurement approach for the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR). We recruited (1) adult patients diagnosed with a hematologic malignancy 14 days to 6 months after receiving a commercial CAR T cell product who had agreed to be contacted by the CIBMTR, (2) caregivers of those patients, and (3) clinical experts in CAR-T therapy. Telephone interviews were conducted following a semistructured guide that included open-ended questions about symptoms and functioning. We conducted a systematic content analysis of each transcript using prespecified codes representing common domains of health, as well as open coding for emergent themes. Forty patients at 29 centers, 15 of their caregivers, and 15 experts from 9 centers participated, representing diversity with respect to age, sex, race/ethnicity, and years in practice (experts). Patients, caregivers, and experts shared largely consistent impressions of the patient experience after CAR-T therapy. Commonly described themes included anxiety, cognitive dysfunction, depression, fatigue, pain, impaired physical function, gastrointestinal symptoms, sexual dysfunction, sleep difficulties, need for support, financial impact, hospitalization, communication with healthcare providers, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Limitations in patients' ability to participate in social roles and activities was the most prevalent theme, found in nearly all interviews. In the setting of CAR-T therapy, a multidimensional approach to PRO measurement is needed that includes physical, mental, and social health, as well as the financial impact of this novel treatment. High-quality existing PRO tools are available to measure these concepts. Results will inform the CIBMTR measurement of PROs after CAR-T therapy and may be applicable to other CAR-T studies that aim to represent patient experiences.

Healthcare resource use and reimbursement amount by site of care in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma receiving chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy - a retrospective cohort study using CMS 100% Medicare claims database.

Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) infusion settings may impact healthcare resource use (HRU) and reimbursement amounts. Adults with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma receiving CAR-T therapy were identified from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) 100% fee-for-service Medicare database and stratified into inpatient (IP; n = 380) and outpatient (OP; n = 50) cohorts based on CAR-T infusion setting. During the first month post-infusion, OP cohort had significantly fewer IP visits, IP days, intensive care unit (ICU) stays, ICU days, and significantly more OP, emergency room (ER) visits, than IP cohort. In subsequent months, HRU became comparable between cohorts. Medicare reimbursement amounts during the first month post-infusion were nominally higher in the OP vs. IP cohort and comparable in subsequent months. The reimbursement amounts did not reflect the reduced HRU with OP infusions, potentially due to differences in Medicare payment policies for OP vs. IP services.

Real-world healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with tisagenlecleucel and axicabtagene ciloleucel among patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: an analysis of hospital data in the United States.

This study compared the real-world healthcare resource utilization (HRU), costs, adverse events (AEs), and AE treatments associated with the chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies, tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) and axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), for relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (r/r DLBCL). Adults with DLBCL who received tisa-cel or axi-cel were identified in the Premier Healthcare Database (2017-2020). Non-CAR-T costs, HRU, and AE rates during the infusion and follow-up periods were compared between the tisa-cel and axi-cel cohorts. Of 119 patients, 33 received tisa-cel (86% as inpatient infusion) and 86 received axi-cel (100% inpatient). Tisa-cel was associated with significantly shorter mean inpatient length of stay than axi-cel during infusion (11.3 vs. 18.3 days) and follow-up ([monthly] 3.9 vs. 6.9 days). Non-CAR-T costs were significantly lower for tisa-cel compared with axi-cel during infusion ($27594.8 vs. $51378.3) and follow-up ([monthly] $28777.3 vs. $46575.7; both p< .05). Rates of AEs and AE treatments were similar.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Tisagenlecleucel for the Treatment of Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma in the United States.

PURPOSE: To assess the cost-effectiveness and cost-effective price of tisagenlecleucel, a novel, effective chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, versus salvage chemotherapy (SC) for the treatment of relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (r/r DLBCL) using a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from a US third-party payer's perspective. METHODS: A three-state (progression-free survival, progressive disease, and death), responder-based partitioned survival model with a lifetime horizon and 3% annual discount rate was developed. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival of tisagenlecleucel were estimated separately for patients with and without an overall response (OR), using data from JULIET ( Study of Efficacy and Safety of CTL019 in Adult DLBCL Patients). OS of SC was informed by SCHOLAR-1 (Retrospective Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Research). Mixture cure models were used to inform the survival of tisagenlecleucel responders, supported by JULIET. The median OS was 11.1 months in all tisagenlecleucel-treated patients but not reached for responders; no progression or death occurred among responders since month 22 of treatment. For tisagenlecleucel nonresponders and SC, survival was based on standard parametric models until month 60and the survival of DLBCL long-term survivors thereafter. The model prediction validated well against the observed trial data. Costs and utilities were from the literature; utilities depended on health states and were used to estimate QALYs. Total costs, QALYs, and incremental cost per QALY gained were estimated. A cost-effective price range was estimated for all tisagenlecleucel-treated patients, OR responders, and complete response (CR) responders. Deterministic sensitivity and scenario analyses and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed. All costs were reported in or inflated to 2020 US dollars. FINDINGS: Tisagenlecleucel was associated with 3.35 QALYs gained versus SC.,The estimated incremental costs per QALY gained versus SC were $78,652 using the wholesale acquisition cost of $373,000 for tisagenlecleucel. The estimated cost-effective price of tisagenlecleucel in all treated patients was $612,270 at the WTP threshold of $150,000. Tisagenlecleucel OR and CR responders had an increase of 7.82 and 9.34 QALYs versus SC, with cost-effective prices estimated at $1,281,456 and $1,551,974, respectively. Sensitivity analysis results supported the base case findings. IMPLICATIONS: Tisagenlecleucel is a cost-effective treatment versus SC for r/r DLBCL from the perspective of a US third-party payer. The estimated cost-effective prices ranged from $612,270 (all tisagenlecleucel-treated patients) to up to $1.5 million (patients achieving CR). Limitations include the use of single-arm trials due to data availability.

Systematic literature review of clinical trials of endocrine therapies for premenopausal women with metastatic HR+ HER2- breast cancer.

Several endocrine-based therapies have recently been evaluated as treatments for premenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive/human-epidermal-growth-factor-receptor 2 negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC). We conducted a systematic review and assessed the feasibility of an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) to characterize the comparative efficacy of endocrine-based therapies in this setting. A systematic literature review (SLR) of Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and key conferences was performed to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) satisfying the following criteria: (a) included pre/perimenopausal women with HR+/HER2- mBC, (b) included endocrine-based therapies, (c) reported efficacy, safety, or quality of life outcomes, and (d) was published in 2007 or later (when HER2 testing was standardized). The clinical and methodological similarities across trials were assessed to evaluate the feasibility of an ITC. Four RCTs (PALOMA-3, MONARCH-2, KCSG BR10-04 and MONALEESA-7) and eight regimens (palbociclib + fulvestrant + goserelin, fulvestrant + goserelin, abemaciclib + fulvestrant + gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist [GnRHa], fulvestrant + GnRHa, anastrozole + goserelin, goserelin, ribociclib + NSAI/tamoxifen + goserelin and NSAI/tamoxifen + goserelin) were selected. MONALEESA-7 was the only phase 3 trial investigating endocrine-based therapies as first-line in only pre/perimenopausal women with HR+/HER2- mBC; the other three trials focused on the ET-failure setting and their pre/perimenopausal populations were relatively small. ITCs were methodologically unfeasible due to critical differences in treatment settings and lack of common comparators across trials. Therefore, we were not able to characterize the relative efficacy of the different endocrine-based therapies available in the premenopausal HR+/HER2- mBC setting. This systematic review provides a comprehensive assessment of the available trial evidence on the efficacy and safety of endocrine-based therapies for premenopausal women with HR+/HER2- mBC. Only four trials have reported relevant data in this setting, and MONALEESA-7 is currently the only trial focused on premenopausal HR+ HER2- mBC in the first-line setting.

Quantification of Economic Impact of Drug Wastage in Oral Oncology Medications: Comparison of 3 Methods Using Palbociclib and Ribociclib in Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Discarding unused drugs after dose changes or discontinuation can significantly affect pharmacy budgets. This is especially concerning for expensive oncology agents. However, few economic studies account for drug wastage, providing an inaccurate estimate of a drug's actual economic cost, cost-effectiveness, and value. OBJECTIVES: To (a) compare the economic impact of drug wastage between ribociclib and palbociclib-clinically similar oral medications for metastatic breast cancer-using 3 approaches (Markov model, pharmacy acquisition cost model, and a retrospective claims analysis) and (b) compare the modeling results with a published estimate of drug wastage for palbociclib from a claims analysis. METHODS: A Markov model and a pharmacy acquisitions cost model were developed to evaluate the economic impact of dose reductions for ribociclib and palbociclib over a 1-year time period. Data inputs were pharmacy costs (RED BOOK wholesale acquisition cost) and proportion of patients experiencing dose reductions from either ribociclib randomized clinical trials (MONALEESA-2, -3, or -7) or real-world observational data (Symphony Health retrospective claims analysis). The latter constituted the third approach for quantifying drug wastage. The economic impact of dose reductions for ribociclib and palbociclib in postmenopausal women with previously untreated HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer was assessed. Drug wastage was defined as drug doses that could not be used by a patient following a dose reduction. The cost of drug wastage was defined as the cost associated with an unused drug resulting from a dose reduction. The predicted results from the 2 models were compared with a previously published claims analysis that estimated the effect of treatment costs and drug wastage for palbociclib based on the observed dosing patterns from the Symphony Health Solutions database. RESULTS: In the Markov model, relative to ribociclib, palbociclib users experienced drug wastage of $112,382 total, or $1,124 per treated patient, per year due to dose changes. In the pharmacy acquisition cost model, relative to ribociclib, palbociclib usage was associated with an increased cost of $7,196 per patient per year (based on a mid-cycle dose reduction) comprising dosing-based cost differences and drug wastage cost for palbociclib of $3,727. The previously published claims analysis found that palbociclib users experiencing a dose reduction had drug wastage costs of $5,471 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: In both models, dose reductions for ribociclib patients resulted in no wastage, since unused tablets could be administered in subsequent cycles, while dose reductions for palbociclib resulted in drug wastage and increased costs. The results from both models were consistent with previously published results from the claims analysis, demonstrating drug wastage costs for palbociclib. DISCLOSURES: This study received financial support from Novartis Pharmaceuticals, which has products approved for treatment of breast cancer. Tang was employed by Novartis during this study; Zacker and Dalal are employed by Novartis and own company stock. Biskupiak, Brixner, and Oderda received payment from Novartis for this study. Brixner serves as a consultant for Millcreek Outcomes Group and also declares consulting fees from Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Abbott, Becton Dickinson, and Xcenda, unrelated to this study.

Efficacy and Safety of Ribociclib With Letrozole in US Patients Enrolled in the MONALEESA-2 Study.

BACKGROUND: In the Mammary Oncology Assessment of LEE011's (Ribociclib's) Efficacy and Safety (MONALEESA-2) study, combination treatment with the selective inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinases 4/6 ribociclib with letrozole significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus letrozole alone in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC). Herein we present results from the subset of US patients enrolled in MONALEESA-2. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- ABC without previous treatment for advanced disease were randomized (1:1) to ribociclib 600 mg/d (3 weeks on/1 week off) with letrozole 2.5 mg/d (continuous) or placebo with letrozole. The primary end point was locally assessed PFS. RESULTS: Overall, 213 US patients were enrolled in MONALEESA-2 (ribociclib, n = 100; placebo, n = 113). Baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups and consistent with the global population. With a median follow-up of 27 months, 38 (38%) and 29 (26%) patients in the ribociclib and placebo groups, respectively, had continued to receive treatment. Median PFS was 27.6 months with ribociclib and 15.0 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.53). The most common all-cause adverse events were neutropenia (ribociclib, 72.0% [n = 72]; placebo, 4.6% [n = 5]), nausea (ribociclib, 69.0% [n = 69]; placebo, 44.0% [n = 48]), and fatigue (ribociclib, 60.0% [n = 60]; placebo, 50.5% [n = 55]). Two patients (ribociclib, 2.0%; placebo, 0%) experienced febrile neutropenia. CONCLUSION: In the US subset of MONALEESA-2, ribociclib with letrozole showed superior efficacy versus letrozole alone. These findings are consistent with the global population and support first-line use of ribociclib with letrozole in patients with HR+/HER2- ABC.

Real-world treatment patterns and survival of patients with BRAF V600-mutated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical outcomes data on BRAF-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated in routine practice is limited. To address this gap, we described treatment patterns and survival in a cohort of these patients evaluated/treated at 7 US academic cancer centers during 2009-2016. METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review. Patients with BRAF V600-mutated metastatic NSCLC were selected. Current/previous participants in BRAF-related trials were excluded. Onset of metastatic NSCLC defined a patient's index date, which had to occur ≥6 months before the chart review date. Analyses were descriptive, including Kaplan-Meier analyses for overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The study included 72 patients. At index, median age (range) was 65 (44-90) years; 61.1% were female. Fifty-two patients received ≥1 line of systemic therapy for metastatic disease. Platinum-based doublet chemotherapy was the most common first-line (1 L) regimen (76.9% of 1 l recipients); no patient received 1 l targeted therapy (TT) with a BRAF/MEK inhibitor. In total, 20 patients received TT in any treatment line (2 l or later). At time of review, 38 patients were deceased. Median (95%CI) OS from index for all patients was 31.0 (14.5, 63.8) months. Median (95%CI) OS was 56.5 (13.4, 89.1) months from index for TT recipients and 27.2 (10.6, 64.6) months in patients not treated with TT. CONCLUSION: Survival time in BRAF V600-mutated metastatic NSCLC patients studied here was higher than expected based on indirect comparisons with historical NSCLC cohorts for whom no oncogenic driver (BRAF or otherwise) was present. TT recipients had a numerically longer OS from metastatic onset than patients receiving usual care, further highlighting the importance of TT in BRAF V600-mutant NSCLC.

Economic Impact of Next-Generation Sequencing Versus Single-Gene Testing to Detect Genomic Alterations in Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Using a Decision Analytic Model.

PURPOSE: The aim of the current study was to assess the economic impact of using next-generation sequencing (NGS) versus single-gene testing strategies among patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) from the perspective of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and US commercial payers. METHODS: A decision analytic model considered patients who were newly diagnosed with mNSCLC who received programmed death ligand 1 and genomic alteration tests-EGFR, ALK, ROS1, BRAF, MET, HER2, RET, and NTRK1-using upfront NGS (all alterations tested simultaneously plus KRAS), sequential testing (sequence of single-gene tests), exclusionary testing (KRAS plus sequential testing), and hotspot panels (EGFR, ALK, ROS1, and BRAF tested simultaneously plus single-gene tests or NGS for MET, HER2, RET, and NTRK1). Model outcomes for each strategy were time-to-test results, the proportion of patients identified harboring alterations with or without US Food and Drug Administration-approved therapies, and total testing costs. A budget impact analysis assessed the economic effects of increasing the proportion of NGS-tested patients. RESULTS: In a hypothetical 1,000,000-member health plan, 2,066 Medicare-insured patients and 156 commercially insured patients were estimated to have mNSCLC and to be eligible for testing. Time-to-test results were 2.0 weeks for NGS and the hotspot panel, faster than exclusionary and sequential testing by 2.7 and 2.8 weeks, respectively. NGS was associated with cost savings for both CMS ($1,393,678; $1,530,869; and $2,140,795 less than exclusionary, sequential testing, and hotspot panels, respectively) and commercial payers ($3,809; $127,402; and $250,842 less than exclusionary, sequential testing, and hotspot panels, respectively). Increasing the proportion of NGS-tested patients translated into substantial cost savings for both CMS and commercial payers. CONCLUSION: Use of upfront NGS testing in patients with mNSCLC was associated with substantial cost savings and shorter time-to-test results for both CMS and commercial payers.

COPD affects worker productivity and health care costs.

Purpose: This study aimed to measure the true burden of COPD by calculating incremental direct and indirect costs. Direct medical resource use, productivity metrics, and COPD-specific resource use and costs were also evaluated. Patients and methods: This was a retrospective, observational, matched cohort study using administrative claims data from the Truven Health MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters and the Health and Productivity Management databases (2007-2010). Working-age (18-65 years) patients with COPD were identified as having at least one hospitalization or one emergency department visit or two outpatient visits. Patients in the non-COPD cohort did not have a diagnosis of COPD during the study period. Outcomes were evaluated in the first full calendar year after the year of identification (index). Results: Of the 5,701 patients with COPD identified, 3.6% patients were frequent exacerbators (≥2), 10.4% patients were infrequent exacerbators (1), and 86% patients were non-exacerbators (0). When compared with the 17,103 patients without COPD, the incremental direct cost of COPD was estimated at $6,246/patient/year (95% confidence interval: $4,620, $8,623; P<0.001). Loss in productivity was significantly greater in patients with COPD, with an average of 5 more days/year of absence from work and incremental indirect costs from short-term disability of $641 (P<0.001). Direct costs for frequent exacerbators ($17,651/year) and infrequent exacerbators ($14,501/year) were significantly higher than those for non-exacerbators ($11,395, P<0.001). Conclusion: Working-age patients with COPD incur statistically significantly higher direct and indirect costs and use more resources compared with those who do not have COPD.

Treatment and Monitoring Patterns Among Premenopausal Women with HR+/HER2- Advanced Breast Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Premenopausal women with hormone receptor positive (HR+) and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (aBC) often present with aggressive tumor types that lead to poor prognosis, high rates of recurrence, and mortality. Although clinical guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for optimal treatment and monitoring, there is a dearth of information regarding treatment and monitoring patterns in clinical practice. In this study, we describe treatment and monitoring patterns among premenopausal women with HR+/HER2- aBC in real-world practice. METHODS: A large US claims database was used to describe treatment patterns for patients in first, second, and third lines of therapy. Treatment monitoring included complete blood count (CBC), liver function test (LFT), and electrocardiogram (EKG) monitoring, described for the first three lines of therapy, and separately for patients receiving endocrine monotherapy (ET) and chemotherapy. RESULTS: Among 3203 patients, chemotherapy was the most common treatment used in first-line (63.6%) and second-line therapy (66.9%). ET was used in 34.4, 30.1, and 73.6% of patients in first, second, and third lines of therapy, respectively. The two most common treatment sequences were a single line of ET (27.3%), and two consecutive lines of chemotherapy followed by a line of ET (19.3%). Patients receiving chemotherapy were monitored with CBC on average more than two times per month, and for LFT one to two times per month. Patients receiving ET were monitored with CBC and LFT on average once every 2-3 months. Overall, approximately 20% of patients were monitored with an EKG at some point during each line of therapy. CONCLUSION: A considerable proportion of premenopausal women with aBC received first- and second-line chemotherapy, which appears inconsistent with current clinical guidelines. The observed treatment heterogeneity points to a lack real-world consensus on the management of premenopausal women with HR+/HER2- aBC. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Budget impact of including ribociclib in combination with letrozole on US payer formulary: first-line treatment of post-menopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

OBJECTIVES: The combination of a cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK 4/6) inhibitor with the aromatase inhibitor letrozole is a safe and effective alternative to letrozole monotherapy for first-line hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer. This study evaluates the budget impact of using the CDK 4/6 inhibitor ribociclib plus letrozole as a first-line treatment option for postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer, from a United States (US) payer perspective. METHODS: A cohort-based budget impact model was used to calculate the incremental cost of introducing ribociclib plus letrozole over three years for the target population. The analysis compared two scenarios: treatment options excluding or including ribociclib plus letrozole. Market shares were derived from market research and the assumption was the introduction of ribociclib plus letrozole would only displace existing CDK-based therapies. Treatment duration was based on the median time to treatment discontinuation or median progression-free survival for first-line treatment, and on clinical trial data for second- and third-line treatment. Acquisition costs were based on wholesale acquisition costs and considered co-payment. Costs for drug administration and monitoring, subsequent therapy, and relevant adverse events were included. RESULTS: Of 1 million insured members, 263 were eligible for CDK 4/6 inhibitor treatment. Cumulative total savings with ribociclib plus letrozole were $3.01M over three years, corresponding to a cumulative incremental cost saving of $318.11 per member treated per month. CONCLUSIONS: In the US, ribociclib plus letrozole represents a cost-saving first-line treatment option for postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer.

Monitoring of Hematologic, Cardiac, and Hepatic Function in Post-Menopausal Women with HR+/HER2- Metastatic Breast Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: In the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (mBC), regular monitoring is key in helping physicians to make informed clinical decisions, managing treatment side effects, and maintaining patients' quality of life. Therefore, we investigated the monitoring frequency in post-menopausal women with HR+/HER2- mBC stratified by first-line regimen. METHODS: Treatment monitoring was assessed using two complementary data sources: a medical chart review (chart review analysis) and a commercial claims database (claims analysis). Women with post-menopausal HR+/HER2- mBC who initiated first-line therapy for mBC were selected and classified under three cohorts, based on treatment received: cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor (i.e., palbociclib-the only CDK4/6 approved at the time of the study), endocrine therapy (ET), and chemotherapy. Frequency of monitoring [complete blood count (CBC), electrocardiogram (EKG), and liver function test (LFT)] and laboratory abnormalities detected during the first line of therapy were analyzed. RESULTS: In the chart review analysis, 64 US oncologists abstracted medical information on 401 eligible patients, including 210 CDK4/6 users, 121 ET users, 51 chemotherapy users; 19 patients used other regimens. All patients had ≥ 1 CBC; between 8.3% (ET users) and 39.5% (CDK4/6 users) had ≥ 1 EKG; and over 98% of patients had ≥ 1 LFT across all three cohorts. Among monitored patients, 64.6% had a CBC abnormality, with anemia (39.9%), leukopenia (27.4%), and neutropenia (26.7%) being the most common. Abnormal EKG readings were detected in 8.4, 0.0%, and 7.7% of CDK4/6, ET, and chemotherapy users, respectively. LFT abnormalities were detected in 14.1-26.0% of CDK4/6 and chemotherapy users, respectively. Similar frequency of monitoring was observed in the claims analysis, with the exception of EKG monitoring, for which the proportion of patients tested was higher. CONCLUSION: Post-menopausal women with HR+/HER2- mBC receiving first-line therapy with CDK4/6, ET, or chemotherapy were regularly monitored regardless of the first-line regimen received. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Dosing Patterns and Economic Burden of Palbociclib Drug Wastage in HR+/HER2- Metastatic Breast Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Targeted therapies have revolutionized the treatment of hormone receptor positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC). However, as for many oncology drugs, the dose of targeted therapies may need to be adjusted over time, leading to drug wastage when a dose modification is needed but the dose cannot be split or saved. This has been shown to be the case for palbociclib and has led to concerns among payers. This study described palbociclib dosing patterns and estimated the economic burden of the drug wastage associated with palbociclib dose modifications in postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- mBC. METHODS: A large US claims database was used to identify postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- mBC who received a palbociclib-based therapy during one of their first three lines of therapy for mBC between February 2015 (palbociclib approval) and December 2015. Dosing patterns (dosing modifications and sequences) were reported; a dose modification was defined as an increase/decrease of at least 25 mg daily compared to the preceding dose. Estimates of drug wastage costs were based on days with overlap in prescription fills for different palbociclib doses. RESULTS: A total of 473 postmenopausal palbociclib-treated women with HR+/HER2- mBC were included (first line 214; second line 157; third line 120). Over an average duration of line of therapy of approximately 4 months, dose modification was observed in 17.8%, 31.2%, and 35.0% of patients in first, second, and third line. Average overlap in prescription fills was 9.2, 9.9, and 5.4 days in first, second, and third line. This potential drug wastage resulted in an average cost of $4376, $4740, and $2592 per patient in first, second, and third line. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that drug wastage due to palbociclib dose modification results in substantial costs. Treatment options with more flexible dosing may help reduce the costs of drug wastage. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Cost-Effectiveness of Ribociclib plus Letrozole Versus Palbociclib plus Letrozole and Letrozole Monotherapy in the First-Line Treatment of Postmenopausal Women with HR+/HER2- Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer: A U.S. Payer Perspective.

BACKGROUND: U.S. regulatory approvals of the cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK 4/6) inhibitors ribociclib and palbociclib as add-ons to letrozole greatly enhance the prospects for treating postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Clinical trials have established that the combination of a CDK 4/6 inhibitor with letrozole can significantly improve progression-free survival (PFS) versus letrozole monotherapy and is safe and well tolerated. Cost-effectiveness studies are required to inform payers and clinical decision makers on the money value of combination treatment in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus letrozole versus palbociclib plus letrozole and versus letrozole monotherapy in the first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer from a U.S. private third-party payer perspective. METHODS: A partitioned survival model including 3 health states (progression free, with either overall response or stable disease; progressed disease; and death) simulated lifetime costs and outcomes over a 40-year lifetime horizon with a 1-month cycle length. Clinical efficacy data (PFS and overall survival [OS]) were derived from a phase III trial of ribociclib plus letrozole (MONALEESA-2; NCT01958021), a phase II trial of palbociclib plus letrozole (PALOMA-1; NCT00721409), and a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Health care costs included drug acquisition and monitoring, disease management, subsequent therapies, and serious drug-related adverse events. Effectiveness was measured in life-years, derived from survival projections, and in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), calculated from time spent in each state combined with health-state utility values. A one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis explored the impact of uncertainty in key model parameters on results, and probabilistic uncertainty was assessed through a Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Ribociclib plus letrozole was dominant versus palbociclib plus letrozole, with a cost saving of $43,037 and a gain of 0.086 QALYs. Compared with letrozole monotherapy, ribociclib plus letrozole was associated with an incremental cost of $144,915 and an incremental QALY of 0.689, equating to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $210,369 per QALY. Key model drivers included OS HRs for palbociclib plus letrozole versus letrozole and for ribociclib plus letrozole versus letrozole, the PFS HR for palbociclib plus letrozole versus letrozole, PD health-state costs, utility of response, and cost discount rate. The probabilities that ribociclib plus letrozole was cost-effective versus letrozole at thresholds of $50,000, $100,000 and $200,000 per QALY gained were 1.6%, 6.3%, and 50.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In the United States, ribociclib plus letrozole is a cost-effective alternative to palbociclib plus letrozole for the first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Ribociclib plus letrozole is also cost-effective versus letrozole monotherapy at willingness-to-pay thresholds greater than $198,000 per QALY (for probabilistic analysis). DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was provided by Novartis, which manufactures ribociclib and provided input on the study design and data collection, analysis, and interpretation. Mistry, May, Suri, and Young are employees of PAREXEL. Tang, Mishra, D. Bhattacharyya, and Dalal are employees of Novartis. S. Bhattacharyya was an employee of Novartis during the study period. Tang and Dalal hold stock in Novartis. Brixner, Oderda, and Biskupiak were paid by Millcreek Outcomes Group as consultants for work on this project. Brixner has also consulted for AstraZeneca, UCB, Regeneron, and Abbott.

Treatment patterns, clinical and economic outcomes of patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer receiving ceritinib: a retrospective observational claims analysis.

Objective: To describe patient characteristics, treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and costs among patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving ceritinib in second or later line of therapy. Methods: Adult patients with NSCLC receiving ceritinib were identified from two large US claims databases (2006-2015). Patient characteristics, comorbidity profile, treatment patterns prior to ceritinib, and ceritinib dosing patterns were described. All-cause, HRU, and costs incurred during the observation period after ceritinib initiation were reported per patient per six months. Results: One hundred sixty-four patients were included (mean age 54.2 years, 57.3% female); the majority had metastatic disease (94.5%) and the average Charlson Comorbidity Index was 7.6. 150 (91.5%) patients received crizotinib prior to ceritinib - average crizotinib duration was 10.2 months and time between crizotinib discontinuation and ceritinib initiation was 2.1 months (median= 0; 25th-75th percentile= 0-0.8). Most patients (73.8%) initiated ceritinib on the recommended dose (750 mg) and maintained the dose until the end of the observation period (mean of 7.4 months) or ceritinib discontinuation; 61 (37.2%) patients discontinued ceritinib during the observation period. A total of 76 (46.3%) patients had at least one inpatient admission during the observation period after ceritinib initiation. Mean total healthcare cost per patient per six months was $111,468. Conclusions: Patients with ALK-positive NSCLC receiving ceritinib had a high comorbidity burden and generally started ceritinib on the recommended dose quickly after crizotinib discontinuation. Medical costs accounted for nearly a half of the total healthcare costs.

Progression-free survival with endocrine-based therapies following progression on non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor among postmenopausal women with hormone receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative metastatic breast cancer: a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the comparative efficacy of currently available endocrine-based therapies (ETs) for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) after non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) progression. DESIGN: Network meta-analysis (NMA). METHODS: Randomized clinical trials of ETs for HR+/HER2- mBC were identified via a systematic literature review using MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and key conference proceedings. All trials met the following inclusion criteria: (1) included women with HR+/HER2- mBC; (2) previous treatment with ETs or chemotherapy as first-line therapy; (3) treatment with ET as monotherapy or in combination with targeted therapy; (4) progression-free survival (PFS) was reported; and (5) published in 2007 (when HER2 testing became standardized) or later. Regimens were compared using pairwise hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) of PFS obtained from a Bayesian NMA. Treatments with different approved dosages were pooled into the same arm; anastrozole and exemestane were pooled as aromatase inhibitors (AIs) due to clinical similarities. RESULTS: A total of 4 trials and 6 regimens (palbociclib + fulvestrant, everolimus + fulvestrant, everolimus + AI, fulvestrant + AI, fulvestrant and AI) were eligible for inclusion. Palbociclib + fulvestrant and everolimus + AI had 50% and 55% reduced hazard of progression or death vs. AI (95% CrI upper bound ≤1), respectively. Palbociclib + fulvestrant, everolimus + AI and everolimus + fulvestrant had 54%, 58% and 40% reduced hazard vs. fulvestrant (95% CrI upper bound ≤1), while palbociclib + fulvestrant and everolimus + AI had 52% and 55% reduced hazard vs. fulvestrant + AI (95% CrI upper bound ≤1), respectively. CONCLUSION: Postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- mBC who had previously failed an NSAI and received palbociclib + fulvestrant, everolimus + AI or everolimus + fulvestrant had longer PFS compared to those who received fulvestrant or AI alone.

Progression-free Survival With First-line Endocrine-based Therapies Among Postmenopausal Women With HR+/HER2- Metastatic Breast Cancer:: A Network Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The comparative efficacy of endocrine-based therapies (ETs) for hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) is not well characterized. This network meta-analysis (NMA) synthesized available evidence on progression-free survival (PFS) with first-line ETs for postmenopausal HR+/HER2- mBC. METHODS: A systematic literature review identified randomized controlled trials of first-line ETs. Pairwise hazard ratios and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were obtained via a Bayesian NMA model. Subgroup NMAs were conducted among late progressors (disease-free interval ≥12 months from completion of [neo] adjuvant therapy with letrozole or anastrozole at the time of randomization) and de novo patients, defined as patients whose initial BC diagnosis is mBC. FINDINGS: Five trials and 5 regimens (ribociclib + an aromatase inhibitor [AI] [LEE + AI], palbociclib + AI [Pal + AI], fulvestrant 250 mg + AI [Ful250 + AI], fulvestrant 500 mg [Ful500], and AI) were selected. LEE + AI, Pal + AI, Ful250 + AI, and Ful500 had significantly longer PFS versus AI (95% CrI upper-bound ≤1). LEE + AI had a 30% and 29%, and Pal + AI had a 31% and 30%, reduced hazard of progression or death versus Ful250 + AI and Ful500 (95% CrI upper-bound ≤1), respectively. The probability of being the most efficacious was 46% for LEE + AI and 54% for Pal + AI. In subgroup analyses among late progressors, LEE + AI had a 4% reduced hazard of progression or death versus Pal + AI but was not statistically significant. In the de novo analysis, Pal + AI and LEE + AI had a 29% and 40% reduced hazard of progression or death versus Ful500, respectively, but were not statistically significant. In both subgroup analyses, all therapies had significantly longer PFS compared with AI. IMPLICATIONS: Pal + AI, LEE + AI, Ful250 + AI, or Ful500 as first-line treatment for HR+/HER2- mBC had longer PFS than AI alone. Given the lack of head-to-head clinical trials comparing the efficacy of recently approved first-line ETs for HR+/HER2- mBC, these results have important clinical implications for the treatment of HR+/HER2- mBC in the first-line setting.

Health-related quality of life of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer treated with ribociclib + letrozole: results from MONALEESA-2.

PURPOSE: Evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer treated with first-line ribociclib plus letrozole. METHODS: In the phase III MONALEESA-2 study (NCT01958021), 668 patients were randomized 1:1 to ribociclib (600 mg/day; 3-weeks-on/1-week-off) plus letrozole (2.5 mg/day) or placebo plus letrozole. PROs were assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer core quality-of-life (EORTC QLQ-C30) and breast cancer-specific (EORTC QLQ-BR23) questionnaires. Changes from baseline and time to deterioration in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were analyzed using linear mixed-effect and stratified Cox regression models, respectively. Exploratory analysis of area-under-the-curve for change from baseline in pain score (AUC-pain) was performed. RESULTS: On-treatment HRQoL scores were consistently maintained from baseline and were similar between arms. A clinically meaningful (> 5 points) reduction in pain score was observed as early as Week 8 and was maintained up to Cycle 15 in the ribociclib arm. A statistically significant increase in mean AUC-pain was also observed in the ribociclib arm. Scores for all other EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BR23 domains were maintained from baseline and were similar between arms. CONCLUSIONS: HRQoL was consistently maintained from baseline in postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer receiving ribociclib plus letrozole and was similar to that observed in the placebo plus letrozole arm. Together with the improved clinical efficacy and manageable safety profile, these PRO results provide additional support for the benefit of ribociclib plus letrozole in this patient population.